Kerala

Idukki

CC/144/2021

Shibu Jecob - Complainant(s)

Versus

K S E B - Opp.Party(s)

19 Sep 2024

ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING : 7.10.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  19^th   day of  September,  2024

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.144/2021

Between

Complainant     :     Shibu Jacob, S/o. T.X. Jacob,

Thakadiyel House,

1^st Mile, Vazhoor P.O., Kottayam.

          (By Adv: N.K. Vinodkumar)

And

Opposite Parties     :  1. The Secretary,

KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan,

Pattam P.O.

       2.  Assistant Engineer,

            Electrical Section,

             Vazhoor P.O., Kottayam.     

       3.  Assistant Engineer,

KSEB, Painavu P.O., Kuyilimala

 

 (All by Advs: Minimol T.K. & Lissy M.M.)

 

O R D E R

 

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This  case originates from a  complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer

Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short). Complainant’s case is briefly discussed here

under :

 

Complainant  is  working  as a  power of  attorney  holder of  Smt. Omana Cyriac,

Vellaringattu House, for representing her in cases filed by or against her before courts in

Kattappana and Thodupuzha. As the complainant is working for gain both at Kattappana and Thodupuzha, complaint can be entertained by this Commission. Complainant claims to be a consumer of opposite parties 1 to 3, service being provided by 2^nd  opposite party as consumer No.1156343014026. Incidently, it would be proper to mention who are opposite parties herein. 1^st opposite party is the Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, having its head office at Pattam, Thiruvananthapuram. 2^nd  opposite party is Assistant Engineer of Electrical Section, Vazhoor P.O., Kottayam and 3^rd  opposite party is Assistant Engineer of Painavu, Kuyilimala.  Complainant submits

that the connection is in fact in the name of his father. But he is residing in the same house and that makes him a consumer under the Board. He further pleads that 3 rd opposite party has been arrayed as a party in this complaint only for the purpose of bringing the matter within the jurisdiction of this Commission and further that no relief is claimed against 3 rd opposite party. Coming to the facts, complainant submits that his by-monthly electric bills range in between Rs.1000/- to Rs.3000/-. He has been remitting all bills without fail. In February 2020, complainant received a bill for Rs.7,789/-. This amount was paid. Next bill was due in April 2020. However, due to Covid pandemic situation, no bill was issued. Complainant had paid Rs.1,210/- on 12.5.2020 as per receipt No.0288724 towards electricity charges. In June 2020, complainant received a bill for Rs.22,950/-. In this bill, total reading was shown as 6671 units. Previous reading was 4006 units. Total consumption was 2665 units. Rs.12,027/- was claimed towards energy charges and Rs.10,924/- were for adjustments. Complainant had filed CC 75/2020 before this Commission with regard to this bill and the case is pending. In June 2021, complainant received another bill for Rs.15,271/-. Rs.10,533/- was shown as arrears in this bill. Complainant has been remitting electricity bills regularly and there is no possibility of any arrears being accumulated. There was no meter fault or misuse of energy. However, opposite parties 1 and 2 had repeatedly issued arrear bills. Though the complainant had requested for details regarding additional bill on more than one occasion, no such details were given by opposite parties. In the bill dated 23.11.2020, total bill amount was Rs.8,220/- of which Rs.3,334/- was shown as arrears. Complainant has not paid the arrears and has remitted only Rs.4787/-. In the bill dated 27.1.2020, total amount was Rs.9708/- out of which Rs.3520/- was shown as arrears. In February 2021, complainant was given a short assessment bill for Rs.6746/-. Complainant had addressed objections about the bill before opposite parties. Previously on 21.10.2019, a bill for Rs.19,219/- was issued for the period during which meter was faulty. This amount was paid in 3 instalments by complainant. In the bill dated 27.1.2021, bill amount was Rs.6061/- of which Rs.3520/- was claimed as arrears. This bill was paid by complainant. In bill dated 23.3.2021, arrear claimed is of Rs.3647/-. In the bill issued on 21.5.2021, arrear had increased to Rs.10,324/-. In the next bill arrears come to Rs.10,436/-. Opposite party has sent text message informing that if amounts are not paid, power supply will be disconnected. On 17.9.2021, opposite party had issued disconnection notice in connection with arrears of Rs.6746/-.

 

Complainant submits that he never used electricity for which arrears are now claimed. Opposite parties are bound to explain how arrear bills are being issued despite payment of electricity bills without default. Issuance of arrear bills without any basis is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. Complainant therefore prays for cancellation of short assessment bill dated 23.2.2021 for Rs.6746/- and bill dated 22.7.2021 for Rs.10,436/-. He further claims a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- towards litigation costs. 2. Opposite parties have entered appearance. 2 nd opposite  party  had  filed  a  written version for and on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3.

Their contentions are briefly narrated hereunder :

 

According to them, Smt. Omana Cyriac, Koovappilly is not a consumer of KSEB.

Complainant as her power of attorney holder has no locus standi to file this complaint. Dispute raised by complainant before this Commission relates to service provided in Kottayam District where there is a full-fledged Commission to consider the matter. Service connection for consumer No.1156343014026 is under Electrical Section, Vazhoor of KSE Board in Kottayam District. Name of consumer is Mr. Jacob T.X, Takadiyel House, 1 st Mile, Vazhoor under LT 1A tariff with registered connected load of  3375 watts. It is not correct to say that complainant is residing in the said house. 3^rd opposite party is not a necessary party. He has been impleaded without any cause of action. No service was rendered to the complainant by 3 rd opposite party. During Covid

pandemic, as a licensee, KSEB had issued by-monthly bill since April 2020. Subsequently, on checking actual reading from the premises, bills issued on the basis of

average reading were adjusted on the basis of actual reading recorded from the premises.

Complaint itself indicates from the details of the bill given that he has been creating additional loads by connecting electrical devices at his discretion without informing the licensee. Due to this, there was a surge in consumption of electricity. Complainant has not stated anything about additional electrical devices connected and used in the premises. Consumer is bound to pay for energy actually consumed. Detailed version has been filed in CC No.75/2020 by opposite parties before this Commission. During 3/2020 owing to Covid pandemic, meter reading of the premises was not taken. As per Rule 110(11) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code, complainant was billed for 252 units of consumption which is to be regularized on the basis of meter reading recorded after visiting the premises by meter reader. Reading was done on 23.5.2020 which discloses the following consumption. Final reading recorded on 23.5.2020 was of 6671 untis. Earlier reading recorded on 21.1.2020 recorded a consumption of 4006 units.  Difference was of 2665 units. This was split into 2 and consumption for 3/2020 was taken as 1333 units and that of 5/2020 was taken as 1332 units. Complainant himself has

admitted that he has only made part payments towards the bill served upon him. Arrears

of Rs.10,533/- was balance after reckoning part payment. Total amount outstanding from the complainant as on 26.10.2021 is Rs.25,957/- . It is clear from the complaint  itself that complainant is remitting energy charges at his discretion and liberalized measures taken by KSEB, including not disconnecting supply under Covid pandemic situation were taken advantage of by him. Since only part payments were made by complainant, fee for belated payment was also to be charged. Short assessment bill for Rs.6746/- was issued pursuant to audit report of Regional Audit Office of KSEB after verification of books and accounts. Average units considered for billing during the period of meter fault for billing cycles 1/19 and 3/19 were erroneously taken as 252 units, where in fact actual average was found to be 634 units. The audit wing had pointed out escaped demand due to short assessment by taking average 252 instead of 634 units. This was corrected by taking correct average and short assessment bill for

Rs.6746/- was issued to complainant. Average of 634 was on the basis of consumption during healthy period recorded on 3/18, 5/18, 7/18 which was respectively 479, 712 and 712. Average would come to 634 units. Short assessment bills were issued in accordance with Regulation 136 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code of 2014. As per Regulation 136 of the Code, Board has the power to recover arrears of charges for belated payment. It has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Prem Cottex Vs. Uttar Hariyana Bijili Vitram Nigam Ltd. and others that in case it is discovered in audit that the consumer has been short billed, licensee is entitled to raise a demand for short assessment. In the same decision, hon’ble Apex Court upheld the findings of National Commission, that assessment of escaped assessment is not deficiency in service. That being so, case is not maintainable before this Commission. Present complaint has been filed with deliberate intention to evade responsibility to pay energy charges for the energy actually consumed. There is no deficiency in service. Filing of the complaint before this Commission was with malafide intention. Reliefs claimed are without any basis and should not be granted. Complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

 

3. Case was thereafter posted for steps and then for evidence. Despite availing repeated opportunities, complainant had not turned up to give evidence. Upon request by counsel, 10 documents were marked from the side of complainant without proof. Opposite parties have also not tendered any evidence. 9 documents were marked from the side of opposite parties as Exts.R1 to R9. Both sides were heard including the contentions advanced from the side of opposite parties with regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Now the point which arise for consideration are :

1) Whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint ?

2) Whether there was any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties ?

3) Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

4) Final order and costs ?

 

4. Point No.1 :

 

It is seen from the pleadings in the complaint that the present complainant is claiming to be working for gain in Kattapana and Thodupuzha on the premises that he is a power of attorney holder of one Omana Cyriac and is representing her in court cases before Courts at Kattappana and Thodupuzha. The fact that he is a duly appointed power of attorney holder of one Omana Cyriac and representing her in cases pending before Civil Courts functioning within the limits of this Commission cannot be considered as any work done by complainant for making gains. It is further seen from the complaint that actually father of the complainant is the consumer. Complainant claims to be residing in his father’s house and therefore contends that he is a consumer of the board. These contentions are also untenable. The fact that complainant is residing in his father’s house and enjoying the amenities there as his son would be only upon permission of his father.  That  will  not  make  him a  consumer  under the Board.   It is further pleaded in

paragraph 3 that the assistant engineer of the Painavu Electrical section within Idukki district has been made a party to this case only for the purpose of bringing this case within the jurisdiction of this Commission. These contentions are misconcieved. Despite the fact that complainant had legal assistance in filing this complaint, we notice that the complainant has a wrong impression/idea as to the meaning of the term working for gain and also of the fact that one can claim to be within the jurisdiction of this Commission by impleading a party without any purpose who is residing or working for gain within the jurisdictional limits of this Commission. Since the calling/vocation of complainant was not described in his address given in the cause title as there were pleadings to the effect that complainant is working for gain, giving a margin for his poor knowledge of English, we were inclined to wait for evidence with regard to his action or profession, if at all he is working for gain as claimed by him. However, complainant has not appeared and tendered evidence despite availing repeated opportunities for the same. There is no evidence to show that complainant is working for gain within the limits of this Commission. Admittedly, he is not residing here either. Impleadment of 3 rd opposite party was only for the purpose of making out a case which could be entertained by this Commission as within its jurisdiction. Therefore, we find that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

5. Point Nos.2 to 4 are considered together :

 

Though the contentions advanced by opposite parties with on merits appear to be substantial, we refrain to consider the case on merits in view of our findings entered above on Point No.1. No reliefs can be granted. No order can be passed as such except of one for return of this complaint for presenting before Consumer Commission which has the jurisdiction to entertain this case and we do so accordingly. Complaint is returned to complainant for presentation before proper Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

 

   Pronounced by this Commission on this the    19^th   day of September, 2024

 

    Sd/-

       SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

    Sd/-

    SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

                    Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR